DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BROSS ET AL: "Versatile Video Coding (Draft 5}", - 14. JVET MEETING; 20190319 - 20190327; GENEVA; (THE JOINT VIDEO EXPLORATION TEAM OF ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/;WG11 AND ITU-T SG. 16},, no. JVET-N1001-v8; JVET-N1001 11 June 2019 (2019-06-11)
US 20120308148 A1 (Kim)
US 20180288437 A1 (Hsiang)
Zhao et al. "CEG: ROT-like sub-block transform for inter blocks (Test 6.4.4)", 13. JVET MEETING; 20190109 - 20190118: MARRAKECH: (THE JOINT VIDEO EXPLORATION TEAM OF ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 AND ITU-T SG.16 },, no. JVET-MO0141 11 January 2019
US 20130034152 A1 (claim 48, para 291)
US 20220094939 A1 (Chuang)
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Double patenting rejection has been withdrawn in view of approved terminal disclaimer.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection have been fully but they are not persuasive for following reason.
Re: Prior art rejection of independent claims
Applicant argued in substance that Hsiang does not teaches only when at least one of the third and fourth syntax elements is equal to one, signaling a fifth syntax element associated with a luma component of the first transform unit to indicate whether all transform coefficient of the luma component are zeros. Applicant reasoned that para 22 and 28 indicates Hsiang signaling the cbf chroma flags together, therefore that it cannot teach the luma cbf signaling only when at least one is non-zero .
Examiner respectfully disagrees, first of Hsiang teaches in some embodiment the chroma one can be combined, but on the other embodiment such as para 21 or 27 they are separate. Also this is with regards to the chroma flag not the luma flag.
Most importantly “decode cbf_luma” {Fig.2 #280} and set “cbf_luma” {Fig.2 #285} teaches either signaling or presetting its value depending on if either cbf_cr or cbf_cb flag is non-zero {step 275}
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive
Re: Prior art rejection of dependent claims
Applicant has presented no additional argument, other than arguments already presented with respect to independent claims. Therefore, the arguments are similarly not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bross in view of Kim in view of Hsiang.
Regarding Claim 1: Bross teaches a method of video encoding, comprising:
determining, a first syntax element associated with a coding unit, wherein the syntax element indicates whether there exists at least one non-zero transform coefficient in the coding unit: [(cu_sbt_flag it set cu_sbt_pos_flag, page 114, page 57; page “ NOTE – : When subblock transform is used, a coding unit is split into two transform units; one transform unit has residual data, the other does not have residual data.”, meaning use of subblock transform or indicate the coding unit already have non-zero value that will be going to the first subblock after the split; meaning use of subblock transform already indicate there’s non-zero value that will be going to the first subblock after the split)]
, receiving a second syntax element indicating whether the coding unit is coded with a sub-block transform (SBT) [(cu_sbt_flag it set cu_sbt_pos_flag, page 114, section 7.4.8.5, page 57)] mode: in response to determing the second syntax element indicating that the coding unit is coded with the SBT mode, for a first transform unit of a plurality of transform units partitioned from the coding unit [(page 114, NOTE – : When subblock transform is used, a coding unit is split into two transform units; one transform unit has residual data, the other does not have residual data.)] , determining, a third syntax element [(tu_cbf_cb, page 118 section 7.4.8.10, page 114)] associated with a first chroma component of the first transform unit to indicate whether all transform coefficients of the first chroma component are zeros, determining a fourth syntax element [(tu_cbf_cr, page 118, page 114)] associated with a second chroma component of the first transform unit to indicate whether all transform coefficients of the second chroma component are zeros, and the third and fourth syntax elements is equal to one [(page 118 tu_cbf_cr; tu_cbf_cb; tu_cbf_luma are three separate syntax representing non-zero/zero status of three separate component. At a given time when tu_cbf_luma is used any or both chroma component can be non-zero i.e. tu_cbf_cr and/or tu_cbf_cb is non-zero)] determining a fifth syntax element [(tu_cbf_luma, page 118, page 114)] associated with luma component of the first transform unit to indicate whether all transform coefficients of the luma component are zeros, wherein the first transform unit includes non-zero transform coefficients [(page 114, NOTE – : When subblock transform is used, a coding unit is split into two transform units; one transform unit has residual data, the other does not have residual data.)]
encoding at least one of the first syntax element, the second syntax element, the third syntax element, the fourth syntax element and the fifth syntax element into a video bitstream [(page 114, syntax element means they are encoded in the bitstream)]
Bross does not explicitly show a first syntax element associated with a coding unit, wherein the first syntax element indicates whether there exists at least one non-zero transform coefficient in the coding unit: (in another way Bross does not teaches a separate/first syntax elements from the second syntax element for this; please note the reasonable interpretation of “first”, “second” etc. means they represents separate syntax elements) in response to determining the first syntax element indicating that there exists at least one non-zero transform coefficient in the coding unit, determining a second syntax element
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Kim teaches receiving, from a bitstream, a first syntax element associated with a coding unit, wherein the first syntax element indicates whether there exists at least one non-zero transform coefficient in the coding unit: in response to determining the first syntax element indicating that there exists at least one non-zero transform coefficient in the coding unit, determining a second syntax element
[(Kim “after encoding the flag indicating whether or not the non-zero transform coefficients exist within all blocks of the three components (Y, U, V), the transform type may be encoded only when the non-zero transform coefficient exists, and then, the flags indicating whether or not the non-zero transform coefficient exists within the subblocks of the respective chroma components may be encoded, respectively.” {para 154}; also see para 153)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Bross in view of Kim is also silent about only when at least one of the third and fourth syntax elements is equal to one, signaling a fifth syntax element associated with a luma component of the first transform unit to indicate whether all transform coefficient of the luma component are zeros
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Hsiang teaches only when at least one of the third and fourth syntax elements is equal to one, signaling a fifth syntax element associated with a luma component of the first transform unit to indicate whether all transform coefficient of the luma component are zeros [(Fig.2, if either cbf_cr or cbf_cb flag is non-zero {step 275} decode cbf_luma {step 280}, otherwise don’t decode it and set it to a preset value {step 285}. Therefore, in encoding it corresponds to signaling or not signaling. Please note either cbf_cr or cbf_cb are same flag as tu_cbf_cr and tu_cbf_cb respectively of Bross. TU simply stands for transform unit and para 62 teaches cbf_cr or cbf_cb used for transform coefficicent. Because these are flags their values are eighter zero or 1 )]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Regarding Claim 9: This is claiming decoding with limitations corresponds to claim 1. The additional limitations are taught as follows
receiving a fifth syntax element associated with a luma component of the first transform unit to indicate whether all transform coefficients of the luma component are zeros only when at least one of the third and fourth syntax elements is equal to one, wherein the third syntax element and the fourth syntax element are received before the fifth syntax element, and the first transform unit includes non-zero transform coefficients [(Hsiang Fig.2 step 275 and 280; para 62-65)] ; and
setting transform coefficients of luma and chroma components of rest of the plurality of transform units to zeros. [(Bross page 114, NOTE – : When subblock transform is used, a coding unit is split into two transform units; one transform unit has residual data, the other does not have residual data.)]
Regarding Claims 17: See analysis of claims 1 and see Hsiang para 67, 107
Bross additionally teaches with respect to claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first transform unit is the only one of the plurality of transform units that includes non-zero transform coefficients.[[(page 114 “NOTE – : When subblock transform is used, a coding unit is split into two transform units; one transform unit has residual data, the other does not have residual data.”)]
Bross in view of Kim in view of Hsiang additionally teaches with respect to claim 5. A computing device, comprising: one or more processors; memory coupled to the one or more processors; and a plurality of programs stored in the memory that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to perform operations of the method of claim 1. [(This is describing a common way to implement video encoding in the art, such as in a generic computer as shown in Hsiang para 107-108)]
Regarding Claims 3, 7: Hsiang teaches setting the fifth syntax element to one when both the third and fourth syntax elements are zeros. [(Hsiang para 64)]
Bross additionally teaches with respect to claim 6. The computing device of claim 5, wherein the first transform unit is an only one of the plurality of transform units that includes non-zero transform coefficients. [(see claim 2)]
Regarding Claims 10-11, 13-15, 18-19: See analysis of claims 2, 3 & 5
Claims 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bross in view of Kim in view of Hsiang in view of Zhao.
Regarding Claim 4, 12, 16, 20 Bross teaches the current coding unit is portioned into a ternary tree partition scheme that divides the current coding unit into tree transform units, it also teaches zeroing other in a binary split [(Fig.7-1 pages 108 & page 114 the “NOTE”)]
Bross in view of Kim in view of Hsiang does not explicitly show wherein the transform coefficients of two of the tree transform unit are set to zeros
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Zhao teaches the transform coefficients of two of the tree transform unit are set to zeros [(Zhao section 1.3)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights